Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Suzanne Somers has a new book on the benefits of "bioidenticals". This of course has traditional doctors upset.

Quote:

This month Somers is at it again with her newest book, "Ageless." Subtitled "The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones," the cover features a coquettish shot of the actress unclothed from the collarbone up. Inside, she calls bioidenticals "the juice of youth" and also promotes the questionable dosage advice of a former actress and "independent researcher" named T.S. Wiley (whose academic credentials are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology) who thinks menopausal women should have as much estrogen in their bodies as 20-year-olds.

Quote:

Doctors who specialize in treating menopausal women feel they're fighting a tsunami of misinformation. "Highly sophisticated, unsubstantiated and downright dangerous marketing is leading women to go in and make demands for these bioidentical products, believing them to be effective and safe," says Dr. Wulf Utian, executive director of the North American Menopause Society.

Enjoy.

__________________Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley

I wasn't sure what to write, I just wanted to get the info on the book out here for comment and debate.

The part where it talks about, "promot[ing] the questionable dosage advice of a former actress and "independent researcher" named T.S. Wiley (whose academic credentials are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology) should give you a little insight to my thoughts. I get bothered when I see yet another "celebrity" dispensing health advice.

Does that help, Katana?

__________________Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley

I wasn't sure what to write, I just wanted to get the info on the book out here for comment and debate.

The part where it talks about, "promot[ing] the questionable dosage advice of a former actress and "independent researcher" named T.S. Wiley (whose academic credentials are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology) should give you a little insight to my thoughts. I get bothered when I see yet another "celebrity" dispensing health advice.

Does that help, Katana?

Yes!

Oh, and I second what you said.

Also, I get bothered when millions believe these celebrities and rush out to buy untested, unproven, and potentially dangerous junk. Actually, I get bothered when people do this whether a celebrity is involved or not.

Clueless somers was on Larry King live saying that her book will save millions of lives by getting women off of HRT "drugs" and onto these "natural hormones" instead.

What she hasn't figured out is that a hormone is a hormone, just like vitamin C is vitamin C no matter how it got in the vitamin bottle.

Sad thing, like with all other "all natural" junk, you don't know what dose you're getting in those supplements. Their other claims are completely unproven, and Somers will cause much grief with that stupid book. I guess patients are asking their doctors for that stuff in droves, and are unduly alarmed about what they are currently taking.

Clueless somers was on Larry King live saying that her book will save millions of lives by getting women off of HRT "drugs" and onto these "natural hormones" instead.

What she hasn't figured out is that a hormone is a hormone, just like vitamin C is vitamin C no matter how it got in the vitamin bottle.

Sad thing, like with all other "all natural" junk, you don't know what dose you're getting in those supplements. Their other claims are completely unproven, and Somers will cause much grief with that stupid book. I guess patients are asking their doctors for that stuff in droves, and are unduly alarmed about what they are currently taking.

Exactly, a chemical is a chemical whether it cam from a radish or a labratory. (Don't know where I got radish from, but you get the point) A friend of mine insists "sea salt" is much healthier for you than regular salt. I tell him sodium chloride is sodium chloride...

__________________"Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths" - Carl Sagan

Exactly, a chemical is a chemical whether it cam from a radish or a labratory. (Don't know where I got radish from, but you get the point) A friend of mine insists "sea salt" is much healthier for you than regular salt. I tell him sodium chloride is sodium chloride...

Agreed. Ever see those (so we're supposed to think) exotic bags of potato chips advertised "with sea salt" added? I burn-up at such misleading advertisement that takes advantage of people's ignorance. One can probably ingest more trace minerals from their water supply than from sea salt.

As for bioidenticals--The most influential event I could envision happening would be for that Dr. Oz guy that frequently guest stars on Oprah to come out against it. That show has an enormous following and such an announcement would sway many minds. Judging by the info on his website, it sounds like he's against it, or at the very least; admits there are quality control issues and no data to back up bioidentical claims. Perhaps some letters and e-mails to both the show and their personal website would be effective.

Then they refer to the Women’s Health Initiative and its findings that the
common prescription hormones have been linked with heart disease, cancer and a host of
other problems. Surely, they say, bioidentical hormones cannot do such nasty things,
because they are “natural.” Not so. It is the raising of hormone concentrations in the blood to levels that are not natural to menopause that is the problem, not the source of the
hormones.

Exactly, a chemical is a chemical whether it cam from a radish or a labratory. (Don't know where I got radish from, but you get the point) A friend of mine insists "sea salt" is much healthier for you than regular salt. I tell him sodium chloride is sodium chloride...

Actually, you are mistaken. The "estrogen" in Premarin is a conjugate of over 39 substances, predominantly a horse estrogen that has has chemically "tweaked" so that the original inventor (now owned by Wyeth) could patent it. In a bioidentical compound, the estrogen used is derived from a plant (and since most people are plants anyway) which is identical to the human for of E1, E2 and/or E3 which are, respectively, Estrone, Estradiol and Estriol.

Similarly, "natural" progesterone is just that, while pharmaceutical HRT is an artifical substance, progestin, that does not exist in nature.

Also, I get bothered when millions believe these celebrities and rush out to buy untested, unproven, and potentially dangerous junk. Actually, I get bothered when people do this whether a celebrity is involved or not.

Let's set the record straight. T.S. Wiley is the author of two books, Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar and Survival and Sex, Lies and Menopause. She is not a "credentialed" scientist. Instead, she is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, has published her original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals on molecular oncology (check PubMed), she has authored chapters that are in use in medical school textbooks, keynotes at medical conferences and teaches courses to doctors for which they receive CME credit (Continuing Medical Education), a requirement for maintaining their licenses.

Her goal is not to be famous and appear on television. Instead,. she wants a national trial of compounded bioidentical hormones, which can only happen if there is standardization in both compounding and the way doctors administer and follow the protocol. This is why she has so many enemies - if she is right, with her rhythmic cycling, they are all wrong, and there is a lot of money involved. Doctors and pharmacies are making a fortune on BHRT, but the Wiley Protcol is only $37.50/month (Wiley does not sell it, it is dispensed by pharmacies that agree to compound it according to her instructions).

The publicity hound doctors like Schwartz and Schwarzbein do not want standardization, it will cost them.

My suggestion is that before you comment on the life work of a crusader for women's health, who receives no comnensation for her efforts, you should at least familiarize yourself with her body of work.

I purchased a Body Row from Suzanne several years ago. After a few days the wheels under the seat crumbled so I contacted the company and they sent me a new set of wheels. Within a few days the new wheels crumbled so I called the company again and they said I was too heavy for the wheels and sent me a third set of wheels. I wanted to use it to lose weight but if it can't hold 275 pounds then what good is it? I really like it and if I ever find a set of steel wheels that fit I will start using it again. Or at least just start using it.

My suggestion is that before you comment on the life work of a crusader for women's health, who receives no comnensation for her efforts, you should at least familiarize yourself with her body of work.

According to her Web site, Ms. Wiley charges doctors $1,500 to become certified in her methodology; pharmacies are charged $500 for the right to dispense the product. She said 60 doctors have been trained in the protocol and 12 pharmacies have signed on, though none have paid. On her site, thewileyprotocol.com, she promises that in exchange for the right to use the Wiley Protocol name, she will “drive a revenue stream of customers to you by listing your pharmacy on this Web site” and in a coming book. "

Exactly, a chemical is a chemical whether it cam from a radish or a labratory. (Don't know where I got radish from, but you get the point) A friend of mine insists "sea salt" is much healthier for you than regular salt. I tell him sodium chloride is sodium chloride...

Sea salt contains magnesium, calcium, and potassium salts, and other trace minerals, in much higher concentrations than does table salt. The health benefits (or detriments) may be negligible, but the taste is different.

Sea salt contains magnesium, calcium, and potassium salts, and other trace minerals, in much higher concentrations than does table salt. The health benefits (or detriments) may be negligible, but the taste is different.

Have you considered: Differences in taste could be attributed to variations in crystal structure and size more than anything else?

Have you considered: Differences in taste could be attributed to variations in crystal structure and size more than anything else?

Pure sodium chlorine doesn't change taste with crystal size (structure is uniform); and most uses of salt end up with it disolved in the food, so size is irrelevant anyway.

The taste of sea salt varies widely depending on where it's obtained, because of the differing presence of various other salts and trace minerals.

__________________"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Pure sodium chlorine doesn't change taste with crystal size (structure is uniform); and most uses of salt end up with it disolved in the food, so size is irrelevant anyway.

The taste of sea salt varies widely depending on where it's obtained, because of the differing presence of various other salts and trace minerals.

Crystal has more than one definition and what you’ve applied defines salt at the molecular level. More relevant and from an FCC food grade perspective, crystal refers to the individual granules of salt.

I would largely disagree, granule size, shape, and probably density, are very relevant to the way salt is dissolved on the tongue and hence perceived, tactilely and chemically. As for salt dissolved into food, I would agree to a limited extent. For example, if granule size affects salt distribution (i.e., baked goods) it could have adverse effects on the resulting product.

Actually, you are mistaken. The "estrogen" in Premarin is a conjugate of over 39 substances, predominantly a horse estrogen that has has chemically "tweaked" so that the original inventor (now owned by Wyeth) could patent it. In a bioidentical compound, the estrogen used is derived from a plant (and since most people are plants anyway) which is identical to the human for of E1, E2 and/or E3 which are, respectively, Estrone, Estradiol and Estriol.

Similarly, "natural" progesterone is just that, while pharmaceutical HRT is an artifical substance, progestin, that does not exist in nature.

Seems we have a fan here, and someone who is stuck on the whole semantics of so called "natural" vs. synthetic, while ignoring how the hormone (no matter how it got in the pill) has the exact same effect on the body and carries the exact same risks (or could be worse, but the studies haven't been done).

What we have pushing bioidenticals are a bunch of self proclaimed "experts" selling the usual "natural alternative" without the background or the ability to conduct research to back up their claims.

I got news for ya: whether cyanide is made in a lab or isolated from a plant or animal, it will still kill a person, no matter if you figure it is synthetic or "naturally derived".

What you get in any pill after all the processing (no matter if it comes from a plant or horse) has the exact same effect on the body. Only difference at this point is that the FDA approved product must be tested for safety and efficacy. They must all come in pills that have a known dosage and no unknow contaminants.

The chemical formula is the same for premarin, and for any other estrogen, no matter what its name:

C18H21NaO5S

No matter if you get it from human or horse, plant or lab, it is the same, and has the same effect on the body.

Here are some other names, but they all are the same chemical, and are the same as the formula above.

Conestoral

Estrone-sulfate

Estrogens

Estrone Estrone Hydrogen Sulfate

Estrone Hydrogen Sulfate

Estrone Sodium Sulfate

Estrone Sulfate

Estrone Sulfate Sodium

Estrone Sulphate

Evex

Hyhorin

Morestin

Oestrone Sulphate

Par Estro

Premarin

Prempro/Premphase

Sodium Estrone Sulfate

Don't fooled by idiots selling alternatives. They don't care about the facts, they just know people are quite easily misled to fear anything mislabelled "unnatural".

I don't know why you figure premarin is a conjugate whatchamahoeey, but premarin is estrogen, and is clearly not 39 anything, just the chemical combination as posted above.

Have you considered: Differences in taste could be attributed to variations in crystal structure and size more than anything else?

In my experience, not "more than anything else". Calcium chloride (used in many pickles) and potassium chloride (salt substitute) both taste delicious and weird, and even though sea salt only contains a bit of them, that taste comes through.

In my experience, not "more than anything else". Calcium chloride (used in many pickles) and potassium chloride (salt substitute) both taste delicious and weird, and even though sea salt only contains a bit of them, that taste comes through.

I tried Potassium Chloride ONCE and couldn’t shake the overbearing, metallic taste.

I’d be surprised to learn trace elements in salt could be discerned reliably. Evaporated/solar salt is typically over 99% pure… USDA requires better than 97.5%. My hunch is you’re perceiving differences resulting from structure, not trace elements, unless the purity is in question and below standard.

You could always test yourself. Try finding two similarly grained salt brands; one salt, the other Kosher--no additives--and undergo a blind taste test.

I would largely disagree, granule size, shape, and probably density, are very relevant to the way salt is dissolved on the tongue and hence perceived, tactilely and chemically.

Tactilely, I'd agree. Chemically, no, since the salt cannot be tasted until after it's dissolved in saliva. The molecules affect the receptor in precisely the same way, since they're all identical molecules. The crystal size and shape affects one thing and one thing only, how quickly it dissolves, and therefore the intensity of the taste. The only way to change the taste is to change the molecule.

Quote:

As for salt dissolved into food, I would agree to a limited extent. For example, if granule size affects salt distribution (i.e., baked goods) it could have adverse effects on the resulting product.

Except, of course, that it doesn't affect distribution, since salt is completely dissolved by the liquid portion of the products. The only way that this would not be the case is if the crystals used are simply too big to dissolve during the limited processing time; something that isn't done for specifically that reason. The only way that it would affect the taste of the finished product is by concentration of salt in portions of the finished product, not by any change in the nature of the taste of the salt itself.

The only way to make salt taste different is by the addition of trace minerals and non-sodium salts, both of which can be discerned in very small concentrations.

__________________"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

I don't know why you figure premarin is a conjugate whatchamahoeey, but premarin is estrogen, and is clearly not 39 anything, just the chemical combination as posted above.

I'm sorry, but you need to do your homework:

1. If the estrogen in Premarin were the same as "natural" estrogen, which is impossible because estrogen is a group of hormones, such as E1, E2 and E3, it still wouldn't matter because it is a conjugate of 39 SUBSTANCES, not 39 estrogens. Some of those estrogens you listed are actualy metabolites of estradiol and should only be created in the body from the cascade process, not induced externally. I can explain why they are there if you like, but the short story is because the Premarin deranges the whole process.

2. If you know anything about in vitro fertilization, you would know that estrace and the rest of the (patentable junk) in Premarin is NEVER used. Only natural bioidentical hormones are used in in vitro. Why do suppose that is?

There is a school of thought (Wiley's) that says the synthetic/bioidentical conundrum may not even be the most important issue, it's how it's dosed, formulated, compounded and followed, but you'd have to read her book to understand it.

Ultimately, what matters is that drug companies and their love puppets, the HRT doctors, not dictate to 60 million women (in the US alone) what they do about their health with HRT. You can make all the other arguments you want, about the chemistry, and the personalities, but that is what it boils to. The AMA and the FDA are going to use this controversy to hand doctors and Big Pharma another huge victory.

HRT/birth control pills have active ingredients, and those are isolated from various sources or synthesized. In the case of premarin, it is estrogen isolated from an animal yes. There is also progesterone usually in HRT that is made via FDA approved processes. Then the other fillers don't have an effect on the body, and can't be pointed to as "substances" that are "unnatural" and having a bad effect on the body, since they are usually sugars and starches. There aren't 39 kinds of hormones in Premarin/estrogen or any other types of HRTs, unless you are swallowing unknowns in various plant matter that hasn't undergone the process to isolate the chemical (and even that's a stretch). You won't get this problem from FDA approved HRT.http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Birth-Control-Pill.html

Quote:

In 1982 a biphasic birth control pill was introduced, followed by a triphasic pill in 1984. These low-dose pills contained varying ratios of progestin to estrogen. In 1988 all three drug companies still manufacturing high-dose birth control pills withdrew their high-dose products from the market, at the FDA's request. By 1990, the amount of estrogen in birth control pills had been reduced by at least two-thirds.

You don't seem to have the basics of chemistry down. Chemicals like estrogen from the animal source must be isolated through a process because it is not synthesized. It is isolated through this process until you are left with the hormone. All the other "substances" aren't left in the pill, they are used along the way. If you use cheesecloth to squish water out of cottage cheese, you are left with cottage cheese, and not the cheesecloth to go in your cheesecake.

That is why I looked up Premarin and its chemical composition. There is nothing but that chemical, and not 38 other "substances", heck there aren't even 39 molecules making up the chemical Premarin/Estrogen.

If Wiley is your source, then you are really eating crap hook line and sinker. Wiley is not qualified to be writing on the topic, and it shows. Did you even check Wiley's background? Anthropology does not make one an expert on the human body or any type of chemical. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...lime_a_jou.php

Oh goody, the usual buzzwords of conspiracy, and accusations that the drug companies and doctors want to just poison us all.

Sorry, but we've all been through this before, and it won't work here.

Let's set the record straight. T.S. Wiley is the author of two books, Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar and Survival and Sex, Lies and Menopause. She is not a "credentialed" scientist. Instead, she is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, has published her original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals on molecular oncology (check PubMed), she has authored chapters that are in use in medical school textbooks, keynotes at medical conferences and teaches courses to doctors for which they receive CME credit (Continuing Medical Education), a requirement for maintaining their licenses.

Oh, this T.S. Riley?

Quote:

Wiley claims to be a hormone expert, despite academic credentials she has said are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology from Webster University. In fact, the university's records show that Wiley never earned a college degree. When questioned, Wiley said, "I thought I got a degree or a diploma, but it's possible I was an hour or two short." Asked for a copy, she said, "I live in a 23-room house with 13 people. I don't know how long it would take to find it. Could you just say that I don't have a degree and leave it at that?"

On her Web site, Wiley claims membership in two "professional" organizations: the American Association of Anthropologists (actually the American Anthropological Association) and the New York Academy of Sciences. Both groups say they require no academic credentials. Wiley's Web bio also states she was a "keynote speaker" for the International Hormone Society. A spokesman for the Endocrine Society, the premier association for those specializing in hormones, said it had "never heard of this group." The IHS's Web site confirmed that Wiley was a speaker at its 2005 convention, appearing on the program with a psychiatrist who lectured that hormones could be renamed after Greek gods and goddesses: testosterone could become "Hercules."
...

In response to criticism of Somers's book, last week the American Medical Association's House of Delegates passed a resolution calling on the FDA to increase its oversight and regulation of bioidentical hormones. Wiley's Web site now notes that her degree is "pending."

As for her "research", she is not the first author of any of those four publications. What this means is two things: 1) It may be original research, but it wasn't hers and 2) As second or third author, she may have done little more than count cells under a microscope (in other words a job that doesn't require even a bachelor's degree).

Since I couldn't find it, please provide information about your claim that she has been an author of med school textbooks. Please use a source more credible than her own website.

Originally Posted by nraden

Her goal is not to be famous and appear on television. Instead,. she wants a national trial of compounded bioidentical hormones, which can only happen if there is standardization in both compounding and the way doctors administer and follow the protocol. This is why she has so many enemies - if she is right, with her rhythmic cycling, they are all wrong, and there is a lot of money involved. Doctors and pharmacies are making a fortune on BHRT, but the Wiley Protcol is only $37.50/month (Wiley does not sell it, it is dispensed by pharmacies that agree to compound it according to her instructions).

As Hydrogen Cyanide pointed out, you have been bit naive to think that she has only atruistic motivations. You seem to have bought into her conspiracy-theory, fear-mongering tactics that raise anything anti-establishment up onto some undeserved pedestal. You're in a skeptics' forum. Time to demonstrate some critical thinking.

Originally Posted by nraden

The publicity hound doctors like Schwartz and Schwarzbein do not want standardization, it will cost them.

And what would debunking her claims cost her?

Originally Posted by nraden

My suggestion is that before you comment on the life work of a crusader for women's health, who receives no comnensation for her efforts, you should at least familiarize yourself with her body of work.

Start at her website.

I would challenge you to do the same, but, this time, look beyond her website.

Originally Posted by nraden

Ultimately, what matters is that drug companies and their love puppets, the HRT doctors, not dictate to 60 million women (in the US alone) what they do about their health with HRT. You can make all the other arguments you want, about the chemistry, and the personalities, but that is what it boils to. The AMA and the FDA are going to use this controversy to hand doctors and Big Pharma another huge victory.

-NR

Why do you portray docs as dictating to women what they should do? Why are you so angry and distrustful of physicians? Frankly, docs are now having to deal with all of the confusion and fear caused by unsupportable claims by unqualified people on top of poorly-designed studies such as the WHI (and the pathetic press coverage). No wonder women are confused. Do you think that you're advocating for women more than the physicians who have to sift through all of the misinformation just so women can feel like they're making an informed decision? What intrerest would a doc have in putting a patient on HRT over something else or nothing?

What? You think that all docs prescribing HRT are in cahoots with drug companies? Frankly, it is as ignorant to assume that all docs make money off the drugs they prescribe as it is to assume that people like T.S. Wiley don't make any off their businesses. Then again, it must be so reassuring to live in such a black and white world. Unfortunately, you do a disservice to (and are missing out on) the physicians out there who truly do have their patients' best interests at heart.

As has been noted, T.S. Wiley does not have even a B.A. in anthropology. It is a fabrication she's been claiming for some time now, but she's been exposed.

The premise of the Wiley Protocol is the following "thought experiment" (their words): that if declining hormones are the reason we age, become diseased, and eventually die, then replacing them means we won't age, become diseased, and "we may not have to die".

You might think this is a hypothesis worth studying. Or you might think that this is a promise worth marketing and selling. Women interested in the protocol are told they must purchase only hormones branded with Wiley's name from pharmacies under a licensing agreement with T.S. Wiley. (Anything else is risky, and you don't want to get sick, do you?) Doctors and pharmacists who pay Wiley $1500 and $500 respectively to become certified/registered get what is, in effect, advertising space on Wiley's site. (EDIT: And referrals, of course.) Women who solicit pharmacies for registration are rewarded with free hormones.

There are no clinical studies and no credible documentation of the Wiley Protocol's effects. When asked why they're peddling such fantastically extreme dosages of hormones to the general public without studying it first, the Wiley camp has pleaded impatience.

Many women have become ill on this protocol -- dangerously so. I won't give the full litany but many have become suicidal and other reports include severe alopecia, weight gain, anxiety, and weakness. Some women have experienced incapacitation to the extent that they were house-bound and unable to work.

Women who have come forward and made the mistake of using their real names or revealing an e-mail address have been harassed and even libeled by Neil Raden, who often hides behind fake names. (I've caught him at it many times. IP addresses, e-mail headers, web logs...)

There's a lot more to this -- I'm trying to be brief. Just Google "wiley protocol".